Peggy Nash

[Pay Equity, May 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the Pay Equity Network that is here in Ottawa today.

It has been three years since the release of the pay equity task force report and still no action from the government or the previous government. The NDP has been fighting for proactive pay equity legislation for more than 20 years.

Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. Although pay equity is protected in Canada under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it is not a reality for Canadians. In fact, today, women earn only 72¢ for every dollar earned by their male colleagues.

Yet, the government thinks that the status quo is adequate. It is not.

Pay inequity has wide ranging social consequences for all women and their families. It makes women and children more vulnerable to poverty, especially for households headed by women.

It is time that the government acted on the recommendations of the pay equity task force to ensure basic equality and human rights.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP keeps posing this question. We get different answers. One of the key problems is that the goals are unclear, the timing is unclear, the process and the whole nature of the mission are unclear to us.

Again, it is that open-ended mission, under the auspices of an anti-terrorism mission, that makes Canadians concerned that the current mission has gone on longer than our involvement in the first world war. Canadians are asking how much longer?

I argue that if we were to transfer our focus in Afghanistan to a war against poverty, I have a feeling the violence would end very quickly.

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I echo the question of my colleague, when will it end? When will the mission end? What are the plans of the government to exit Afghanistan? We have no sense of what the goal is, or when they will be successful. The government has ordered more tanks. We have no idea when the mission will end.

It is interesting that my colleague focuses on how much debate we have had on this. We ought to be debating this. What I was commenting on is that every time we have a debate, there is an attempt to undermine those who are calling for a debate. That is what is happening here. We cannot have too much debate.

Lastly, on the Taliban watching TV, it would be a better role for Canada to play if we were providing food and ending poverty, rather than worrying about—

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this motion today.

Canadians are increasingly uncomfortable with Canada's role in Afghanistan. On the nightly news we see growing destabilization, growing counter-insurgency on our part, insurgency on the part of the Afghans, more civilian deaths and increasingly more Canadian deaths.

So far, 54 soldiers and 1 Canadian diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan. This is an incredibly deep tragedy for all those families and all those communities and is a significant loss of life. However, we do not even hear about the loss of Afghan lives. I cannot even tell this House what the number is. I do not know who knows what that number is but I am sure it is very significant.

Now we see something that our defence critic raised a year ago, and it has been confirmed, and that is concerns about prisoner transfer.

Unlike The Netherlands, which secured protection for prisoners that were captured by its troops, we see that prisoners captured by Canadian troops are open to torture and abuse. Here we are as Canadians on an anti-terrorism mission, with escalating violence, escalating deaths and destabilization, and now facilitating torture and violations of international agreements like the Geneva convention.

What is happening? What path are we on as a country? Is this Canada's international involvement? Is this what we aspire to as a country? I think Canadians are very troubled by this.

Constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have spoken with me about this and many are very troubled by this war. They want to know how much longer we will be there, how many more will die and how many more will be injured. Increasingly, they are telling me that Canada needs to get out.

I have even had some World War II veterans say to me that they fought in the war but that this war is not the same, that should not be there. Canadians are definitely very concerned about this.

Many of the troops over in Afghanistan are injured. We do not tend to hear as much about the injuries and the impact that has on the lives of those soldiers. A good friend of mine had a son in Afghanistan. He is a very proud member of the Canadian Forces. He was completing his second tour of duty in Afghanistan when he stepped on a landmine. I am very pleased to say that he survived but his life has changed forever. I want to affirm to this House that he never questioned his mission. He is a very proud member of the forces. He still does not question his mission and he is proud to serve his country.

However, our job as members of parliament is to question and debate this mission and to ensure that when we send our people in harm's way we are asking all of the difficult, tough questions that they themselves cannot ask. I believe debate is healthy and that differences of opinion are normal but I do resent some of the demonization that takes place around differences of opinion with respect to Canada's role in Afghanistan.

I want to be clear that it was the previous government that got us into this current combat mission, this search and destroy mission, which changed us from our normal peacekeeping role in Afghanistan. We were originally there on an anti-terrorist mission under U.S. command but this has now become a NATO mission.

It was a year ago that the current government rammed through a motion to extend this mission to 2009. At that time, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois voted against that motion, as did some members of the Liberal Party. Unfortunately, the motion passed by four votes which committed Canada until 2009, which is the current mission date. Who knows what the government's plans are in terms of extending the mission beyond that because we cannot get any straight answers.

My party's position is clear and well known. The government does not have a clear strategy for bringing lasting peace to Afghanistan. The NDP believes that ever since the mission in Afghanistan began, neither the former Liberal government nor the current Conservative government demonstrated due diligence before getting the Canadian Forces involved in this mission. Our party is asking for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission. We should begin to withdraw as soon as possible in collaboration with our international partners to ensure a safe, smooth transition.

We want to notify NATO immediately that we have already made a huge sacrifice, a disproportionate sacrifice, and we cannot allow this disproportionate sacrifice to continue without any clear goal or definition of success or without any clear achievements in this mission. In fact, I would argue that we are going in the wrong direction and that things are going from bad to worse.

We do not support continuing this anti-terrorism mission as it is, unchanged, for another two long years, as my colleagues in the Liberal Party would have us do with their motion last week. It is not acceptable.

A redeployment would take time, of course. Some have said in the House that we cannot just snap our fingers and have the troops leave. Of course we cannot do that but what we can do and what this motion speaks to is making a decision to change our role and to leave this mission. We can then set in place plans for a safe, measured disengagement from this particular anti-terrorist mission and then maybe we can engage in a more constructive role in Afghanistan.

This conflict is about political problems, not military ones. Therefore, we must seek a political and diplomatic solution. That being said, we do not want to abandon Afghanistan.

Previous speakers have spoken with pride about some of the achievements that have taken place in Afghanistan. I have no doubt that there are some achievements in Afghanistan but I suggest that they are, for the most part, in the north where troops are predominantly in a peacekeeping role and not in places where NATO bombs are falling on homes and where we see on the nightly news the destabilization and escalating violence. I believe we can continue to provide support where many other NATO forces are located but, with escalating violence in the south, I believe NATO and retaliatory bombs will keep escalating the violence.

Our motion speaks to the safe and secure withdrawal from the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan. I believe this can be planned in such a way that our troops are safe and it does not destabilize the south, but the motion also calls for Canada to now focus our efforts on assisting the people of Afghanistan on a diplomatic solution and to redouble our commitment to reconstruction and development.

If we want peace, we need to promote peace. If we truly want to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan, the best thing we can do is give them food instead of violence.

[Criminal Code, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the issue of animal cruelty.

Canada's animal cruelty laws desperately need to be updated. The current law has remained essentially unchanged since 1892. That is 115 years. The world, of course, has changed in that period. Women are now considered people, racism is outlawed, and the world is no longer flat. Yet, we live with a law that, in practice, still treats animals as property and does not recognize them as feeling creatures.

Anyone who has any contact with animals knows that they are breathing, thinking, feeling, sentient beings. I keep thinking about a line from the film Pulp Fiction by Quentin Tarantino, when a two-bit criminal in a discussion around vegetarians says, “But a dog's got personality”, and lots of animals have personality. Anyone who spends time with animals knows they have personality. They are not objects and should not be treated as though they are objects by our laws.

I think we could all agree in this House that the 115 year old law dealing with animal cruelty needs to be updated. However, Bill S-213 does not do it and I will not be supporting this bill.

One thing the bill does is provide greater flexibility around sentencing and somewhat tougher penalties. This is a positive step. However, that is about the only positive thing that I could say about this bill.

As I mentioned earlier, the current law basically says that crimes against animals are considered property offences and does not treat animals as feeling, sentient beings. However, Bill S-213 has the same concept entrenched in it. There is essentially no change. Animals are worthy of protection only as they are property belonging to someone. Clearly, what we need in this country is legislation that removes animal cruelty from the property section of the Criminal Code and more properly reflects modern Canadian values.

Essentially, the problem relates back to the definition of animal. In the current legislation there is no definition of animal and that does not change under Bill S-213. What is clearly needed is a definition of animal as a vertebrate other than a human being. Under that definition then animals are protected. It does not separate out certain kinds of animals with differing offences.

That is the case under the current law. Offences to cattle are different than treatment of other animals and there is no justification for that. All animals should be protected and would be under this broader definition of a vertebrate other than a human being.

The current legislation does not address brutal or vicious treatment of an animal. We all know of examples. We have heard of examples in our communities where a person has terribly mistreated an animal, in essence tortured an animal. This kind of wilful, brutal viciousness toward an animal needs to be dealt with.

The current legislation does not even consider this kind of treatment as a form of violence. The proposed bill, Bill S-213, would not change the current situation. For those terrible high profile cases of which we have all heard that appear periodically in the media, these terrible tortures and brutalities would not be addressed.

What we need is legislation that makes it an offence to kill an animal with brutal or vicious intent and whether the animal dies immediately or whether it dies a horrible lingering death, that violence needs to be addressed.

It is also an issue and a concern how an animal is killed. Currently, it is an offence to kill an owned animal without a lawful excuse. However, wild or stray animals can be killed for any reason. Under Bill S-213 there is no change to that.

While clearly there needs to be protection for lawful killing of animals, whether it is through hunting, fishing, farming, et cetera, there needs to be effective legislation to make it an offence to kill any animal without a lawful excuse. That is missing under the current legislation and under the proposed legislation.

We also need to deal with neglect. Again, periodically we hear about terrible situations where a person, through some kind of wilful neglect, tortures and in many cases kills animals through that neglect. Whether it is on a farm or whether it is a person who is keeping animals in their home, we have all heard about situations of terrible conditions in which animals are kept. They are not properly fed. They end up emaciated and they die. These kinds of situations need to be addressed.

The current legislation has the notion of wilful neglect as an offence, but the bar is set too high. The test to actually prove that someone is culpable in such a situation is extremely difficult and people are rarely convicted in such situations.

Under Bill S-213 there is no change and that will mean that in these terrible cases where animals are starved or otherwise neglected, people will walk away scot-free and they will not be punished.

We need legislation that defines this negligence in a way that would allow for easier conviction and it would be a better definition. Rather than wilful neglect, we should define the neglect as something that is departing markedly from the reasonable care of animals, whether they be domestic animals or livestock. These are some of the deficiencies in the bill that need to be addressed in effective legislation.

This debate has gone on for many years between those who want to protect animals from cruel treatment and those who make their livelihoods by, in essence, killing animals. I believe there is a balance that can be struck to protect these activities while preventing cruel treatment.

Many of my constituents have contacted me about the issue of animal cruelty. They have urged me to work to modernize archaic animal cruelty laws. We need to urgently do this, but the bill is not a step forward. It is a failed attempt which does not merit our support and I will be opposing it.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley gave an eloquent statement. He obviously has extensive knowledge on this issue.

I would like to pick up on a comment he made about the Kyoto agreement being an economic agreement. We have heard a lot of debate about jobs versus the environment. I wonder if he could comment briefly on how he sees job creation taking place under this agreement.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition, with 285 signatures, concerns the federal minimum wage and it recognizes that the federal minimum wage was eliminated by the Liberal government in 1996. A $10 an hour minimum wage just approaches the poverty level for a single worker. A federal minimum wage would extend beyond the numbers of workers covered federally because it would serve as the best practice for labour standards in the country.

The petitioners call for the Parliament of Canada to ensure the passage of Bill C-375, my bill to re-establish a federal minimum wage set at $10 an hour.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns my once in a lifetime bill, with 390 petitioners calling on the Parliament of Canada to ensure that Canadian citizens and landed immigrants are given a once in a lifetime opportunity to sponsor a family member from outside the family class as currently defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That is included in my Bill C-394.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present three petitions, the first of which is from the Toronto Tibetan Youth Congress. I have the privilege of having the largest Tibetan community in the country in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. The petition submitted by the youth congress contains 637 names and was based on Free Tibet Action Week, which was held early in March.

The petition is calling for the federal government to pressure the Chinese government to immediately release all political prisoners, including Tulku Tenzin Delek and the Panchen Lama and to ensure that there are no preconditions for their release.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would equate the situation to two boxers and suddenly one opponent has three other people on his side in the ring and they are all ganging up on the other. It is that. It is always knowing that one has that extra help, that extra power in one's back pocket and one really does not have to negotiate in a frank and honest way. That undermines the fair bargaining process.